Federal prosecutors in Florida arrested and charged a 35-year-old former Marine and congressional candidate who posted social media videos calling President Donald Trump "the Antichrist" and declaring that "he must be killed." The Department of Justice announced the arrest of William Upham of Jacksonville on Thursday, one day after a U.S. magistrate judge signed the criminal complaint.
Upham faces up to five years in federal prison if convicted of threatening the president of the United States. The charge stems from at least two social media videos and an email he allegedly sent to a reporter promising to "kill President Trump at the time that God chooses."
The case lands in a political environment already charged with high-profile federal prosecutions tied to threats against the president. And it raises a blunt question: when a man running for Congress on the Republican ballot openly calls for the sitting president's assassination, how long should it take for the law to act?
The criminal complaint, filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and supported by a Secret Service affidavit, lays out the case in plain language. The Washington Examiner reported the details of the complaint and the circumstances of Upham's arrest.
In one video, Upham spoke directly to the camera:
"We are at war with evil. This is a war between God and the Antichrist. There is no doubt in my mind that the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is the Antichrist. He is a false Messiah, and he is your enemy, and he must be killed."
A second video, described in the criminal complaint, went further. Upham called on people to "overthrow the Trump administration on behalf of God" and urged the use of semi-automatic rifles in the process.
The Secret Service affidavit also flagged a separate email Upham allegedly sent to a reporter in which he wrote that he would "kill President Trump at the time that God chooses." The name of the reporter was not disclosed in the complaint or in public reporting.
Events moved quickly once the videos surfaced publicly. On Tuesday, the Marine Corps issued a statement disavowing Upham. The service said it was "aware of the disturbing statements" and that Upham's comments "are a direct violation of the oath he swore to uphold and are not in keeping with the service's values."
Upham had been medically discharged from the Marine Corps in 2025. The specific reason for his discharge has not been made public.
By Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Samuel J. Horovitz signed and submitted the criminal complaint. On Thursday, two days after the Marine Corps disavowal, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced Upham's arrest and the federal charge.
Whether Upham remains in custody or has been released is not clear from available court records. No attorney for Upham has been publicly identified, and no statement from him in response to the charge has surfaced.
Upham was not a random social media provocateur. He had filed as a write-in Republican candidate for Florida's 5th Congressional District, a seat currently held by five-term incumbent Rep. John Rutherford. The district is rated solidly Republican by the Cook Political Report. Two other candidates are also running in the Republican primary, scheduled for August 18.
The fact that a man actively seeking a congressional seat would post videos calling for the assassination of the president of his own party, and frame it as a divine mandate, speaks to a strain of political extremism that defies conventional categories. This was not an anonymous internet troll. It was a former Marine asking voters for their trust while simultaneously calling for armed insurrection.
The case echoes other recent instances in which individuals have used social media to call for violence against the president, testing the boundaries of what federal law treats as a credible threat versus protected speech.
Upham's arrest comes against a backdrop of escalating threats against public officials at every level of government. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently told Congress that the threat level against federal judges "is really high," and she sought a significant budget increase to address judicial security.
The DOJ has shown a willingness to bring federal charges in cases involving alleged threats against Trump. Former FBI Director James Comey faces two federal charges and up to 10 years in prison for posting an Instagram image showing seashells arranged to read "86 47," which prosecutors allege constituted a threat against the president. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the time that "threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation's laws." FBI Director Kash Patel added that "James Comey disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump's life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see." As Fox News reported, the lead prosecutor on the Comey case recently stepped down and was replaced by an assistant U.S. attorney, adding uncertainty as that case heads toward an October trial.
The Upham case, however, involves language far more explicit than an ambiguous seashell photograph. There is no interpretive question about what "he must be killed" means. There is no debate over whether calling for semi-automatic rifles to "overthrow the Trump administration" constitutes a threat. The words are plain.
Threats against the president are not a left-right issue in the abstract, but enforcement patterns matter. Some elected officials have objected to sentences handed down for political violence, treating convictions as overreach rather than accountability. That kind of selective outrage makes it harder for the public to trust that the system treats threats equally regardless of the target's party.
The federal statute criminalizing threats against the president carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Prosecutors must prove that the defendant knowingly and willfully made a true threat, not merely expressed a political opinion, however extreme.
Upham's statements, as described in the complaint, appear to clear that bar by a wide margin. He named the president. He called for his death. He specified a weapon type. He allegedly followed up with a private email to a reporter reaffirming his intent. The complaint does not describe the statements as hypothetical, satirical, or conditional.
The criminal complaint was filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and accompanied by a Secret Service agent's affidavit. The complaint and affidavit detail the two videos and the alleged email as the factual basis for the charge.
Several questions remain unanswered. The specific federal statute cited in the complaint has not been publicly identified in reporting. The social media platforms where Upham posted the videos have not been named. And it is unclear how long the videos were publicly available before the Secret Service acted.
Upham's Marine Corps service adds a layer of gravity. The Marine Corps did not equivocate in its response. Its statement called his words "a direct violation of the oath he swore to uphold." That language is unusually pointed for an institutional statement about a former service member.
The Corps noted that Upham was medically discharged in 2025 but did not elaborate on the circumstances. No public reporting has identified the nature of his medical condition. Other recent cases involving veterans who carried out or threatened political violence have raised questions about whether mental health struggles played a role, but in Upham's case, no such claim has been made by anyone on record.
Whatever his personal circumstances, Upham chose to run for Congress. He chose to record videos. He chose to name the president and call for his death. Those are not the actions of a man who lacked agency.
Upham's case will proceed through the Middle District of Florida. The August 18 Republican primary in Florida's 5th Congressional District will go forward with or without him, Rep. Rutherford and two other candidates remain on the ballot. Whether Upham's name can be removed from the write-in list, or whether his arrest effectively ends his candidacy, has not been addressed publicly.
The broader question is whether the political culture that produces a man willing to post assassination threats while running for Congress will reckon with what that says. Debates over the DOJ's use of federal power will continue, and they should. But when a candidate for the United States Congress records himself calling for the president to be killed with rifles, the system is supposed to act. In this case, it did.
The law does not care whether you wrap a death threat in Scripture. It shouldn't.
